Anne C. Lusk

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street

Most individuals prefer bicycling separated from motor traffic. However, cycle tracks (physically separated bicycle-exclusive paths along roads, as found in The Netherlands) are discouraged in the USA by engineering guidance that suggests that facilities such as cycle tracks are more dangerous than the street. The objective of this study conducted in Montreal (with a longstanding network of cycle tracks) was to compare bicyclist injury rates on cycle tracks versus in the street. For six cycle tracks and comparable reference streets, vehicle/bicycle crashes and health record injury counts were obtained and use counts conducted. The relative risk (RR) of injury on cycle tracks, compared with reference streets, was determined. Overall, 2.5 times as many cyclists rode on cycle tracks compared with reference streets and there were 8.5 injuries and 10.5 crashes per million bicycle-kilometres. The RR of injury on cycle tracks was 0.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.85) compared with bicycling in reference streets. These data suggest that the injury risk of bicycling on cycle tracks is less than bicycling in streets. The construction of cycle tracks should not be discouraged.

Bicycle Guidelines and Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States

OBJECTIVES We studied state-adopted bicycle guidelines to determine whether cycle tracks (physically separated, bicycle-exclusive paths adjacent to sidewalks) were recommended, whether they were built, and their crash rate. METHODS We analyzed and compared US bicycle facility guidelines published between 1972 and 1999. We identified 19 cycle tracks in the United States and collected extensive data on cycle track design, usage, and crash history from local communities. We used bicycle counts and crash data to estimate crash rates. RESULTS A bicycle facility guideline written in 1972 endorsed cycle tracks but American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines (1974-1999) discouraged or did not include cycle tracks and did not cite research about crash rates on cycle tracks. For the 19 US cycle tracks we examined, the overall crash rate was 2.3 (95% confidence interval = 1.7, 3.0) per 1 million bicycle kilometers. CONCLUSIONS AASHTO bicycle guidelines are not explicitly based on rigorous or up-to-date research. Our results show that the risk of bicycle-vehicle crashes is lower on US cycle tracks than published crashes rates on roadways. This study and previous investigations support building cycle tracks.

Database improvements for motor vehicle/bicycle crash analysis

Background Bicycling is healthy but needs to be safer for more to bike. Police crash templates are designed for reporting crashes between motor vehicles, but not between vehicles/bicycles. If written/drawn bicycle-crash-scene details exist, these are not entered into spreadsheets. Objective To assess which bicycle-crash-scene data might be added to spreadsheets for analysis. Methods Police crash templates from 50 states were analysed. Reports for 3350 motor vehicle/bicycle crashes (2011) were obtained for the New York City area and 300 cases selected (with drawings and on roads with sharrows, bike lanes, cycle tracks and no bike provisions). Crashes were redrawn and new bicycle-crash-scene details were coded and entered into the existing spreadsheet. The association between severity of injuries and bicycle-crash-scene codes was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. Results Police templates only consistently include pedal-cyclist and helmet. Bicycle-crash-scene coded variables for templates could include: 4 bicycle environments, 18 vehicle impact-points (opened-doors and mirrors), 4 bicycle impact-points, motor vehicle/bicycle crash patterns, in/out of the bicycle environment and bike/relevant motor vehicle categories. A test of including these variables suggested that, with bicyclists who had minor injuries as the control group, bicyclists on roads with bike lanes riding outside the lane had lower likelihood of severe injuries (OR, 0.40, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.98) compared with bicyclists riding on roads without bicycle facilities. Conclusions Police templates should include additional bicycle-crash-scene codes for entry into spreadsheets. Crash analysis, including with big data, could then be conducted on bicycle environments, motor vehicle potential impact points/doors/mirrors, bicycle potential impact points, motor vehicle characteristics, location and injury.

Bicycle Facilities That Address Safety, Crime, and Economic Development: Perceptions from Morelia, Mexico

México is a developing nation and, in the city of Morelia, the concept of the bicyclist as a road user appeared only recently in the Municipal Traffic Regulations. Perhaps the right bicycle infrastructure could address safety, crime, and economic development. To identify the best infrastructure, six groups in Morelia ranked and commented on pictures of bicycle environments that exist in bicycle-friendly nations. Perceptions about bike paths, but only those with impossible-to-be-driven-over solid barriers, were associated with safety from crashes, lowering crime, and contributing to economic development. Shared use paths were associated with lowering the probability of car/bike crashes but lacked the potential to deter crime and foster the local economy. Joint bus and bike lanes were associated with lower safety because of the unwillingness by Mexican bus drivers to be courteous to bicyclists. Gender differences about crash risk biking in the road with the cars (6 best/0 worst scenario) were statistically significant (1.4 for male versus 0.69 for female; p < 0.001). For crashes, crime, and economic development, perceptions about bicycle infrastructure were different in this developing nation perhaps because policy, institutional context, and policing (ticketing for unlawful parking) are not the same as in a developed nation. Countries such as Mexico should consider building cycle tracks with solid barriers to address safety, crime, and economic development.

Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want

This paper examines if, in a lower-income minority neighborhood, bicycling practices and bicycle-environment preferences of Blacks and Hispanics were different from Whites. During the summer of 2014, surveys were mailed to 1537 households near a proposed cycle track on Malcolm X Boulevard in Roxbury, MA. On the Boulevard, intercept surveys were distributed to cyclists and observations noted about passing cyclists characteristics. Data were analyzed from 252 returned-mailed surveys, 120 intercept surveys, and 709 bicyclists. White (100%), Hispanic (79%), and Black (76%) bicyclists shown pictures of 6 bicycle facility types in intercept surveys perceived the cycle track as safest. More White mailed-survey respondents thought bikes would not be stolen which may explain why more Hispanics (52%) and Blacks (47%) preferred to park their bikes inside their home compared with Whites (28%), with H/W B/W differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). More Hispanic (81%) and Black (54%) mailed-survey respondents thought they would bicycle more if they could bicycle with family and friends compared with Whites (40%). Bicyclists observed commuting morning and evening included Blacks (55%), Whites (36%) and Hispanics (9%). More Whites (68%) wore helmets compared with Hispanics (21%) and Blacks (17%) (p < 0.001). More Blacks (94%) and Hispanics (94%) rode a mountain bike compared with Whites (75%). Minority populations are biking on roads but prefer cycle tracks. They also prefer to park bikes inside their homes and bicycle with family and friends. Wide cycle tracks (bicycling with family/friends) and home bike parking should be targeted as capital investments in lower-income minority neighborhoods.

Cycle Tracks and Parking Environments in China: Learning from College Students at Peking University

China has a historic system of wide cycle tracks, many of which are now encroached by cars, buses and bus stops. Even with these conditions, college students still bicycle. On campuses, students park their bikes on facilities ranging from kick-stand-plazas to caged sheds with racks, pumps and an attendant. In other countries, including Canada, some of the newer cycle tracks need to be wider to accommodate an increasing number of bicyclists. Other countries will also need to improve their bike parking, which includes garage-basement cages and two-tiered racks. China could provide lessons about cycle tracks and bike parking. This study applied the Maslow Transportation Level of Service (LOS) theory, i.e., for cycle tracks and bike parking, only after the basic needs of safety and security are met for both vehicle occupants and bicyclists can the higher needs of convenience and comfort be met. With random clustering, a self-administered questionnaire was collected from 410 students in six dormitory buildings at Peking University in Beijing and an environmental scan of bicycle parking conducted in school/office and living areas. Cycle tracks (1 = very safe/5 = very unsafe) shared with moving cars were most unsafe (mean = 4.6), followed by sharing with parked cars (4.1) or bus stop users (4.1) (p < 0.001). Close to half thought campus bike parking lacked order. The most suggested parking facilities were sheds, security (guard or camera), bicycle racks and bicycle parking services (pumps, etc.). If parking were improved, three quarters indicated they would bicycle more. While caged sheds were preferred, in living areas with 1597 parked bikes, caged sheds were only 74.4% occupied. For the future of China’s wide cycle tracks, perhaps a fence-separated bus lane beside a cycle track might be considered or, with China’s recent increase in bike riding, shared bikes and E-bikes, perhaps cars/buses could be banned from the wide cycle tracks. In other countries, a widened cycle track entrance should deter cars. Everywhere, bike parking sheds could be built and redesigned with painted lines to offer more space and order, similar to car parking.

Lusk et al. Respond

We thank Schimek for his thoughtful letter. We agree that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) encourages bike paths; however, AASHTO’s definition of a bike path is a shared use path for pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other nonmotorized users. AASHTO discourages bicycle-only cycle tracks because, as noted by Schimek, AASHTO discourages bike lanes on the roadway separated from travel lanes by parked cars or raised barriers.1,2 Therefore, we agree with Schimek that the design of cycle tracks, such as those in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and New York City, are not included in AASHTO guidelines. As we discussed, our analysis suggested that these cycle tracks may have a higher crash rate than the other studied streets with cycle tracks because they are on busy urban arterials, which would include many intersections. At intersections, cyclist injuries increase with traffic volume, more specifically with the number of right and left turns by motor vehicles.3,4 In large cities, cyclists do need protection from motor vehicles, especially at intersections. Cycle tracks are associated with greater cycling and also, as concluded in a recent review of the literature, well-designed cycle tracks reduce cyclist injuries.5 We agree that three of the four comparison rates we cited are based on self-reports for specific populations. We had suggested that adequate comparisons for bicycle crash rates in US cities are lacking. Schimek generated a new bicycle injury rate for comparison, but it includes the overall estimated number of injured cyclists in the United States divided by the overall estimated length traveled by bicycle in the United States. We think that Schimek’s injury rate for the entire United States is not an appropriate comparison with the crash rate on studied cycle tracks, especially in urban New York City and Minneapolis. It is still noteworthy that Schimek’s injury rate estimate of 3.5 for all the states in the United States is higher than the overall crash rate of 2.3 that we found for the 19 cycle tracks across the United States. There is a need for more research on facility design, crashes, and bicycle activity in the United States. Our study does add to the best available evidence, which suggests that cycle tracks can reduce the risk of crashes while providing a more comfortable biking facility.6–8 We think it is time to change the AASHTO guidelines to improve roadways to take into account bicyclists needs, and to protect bicyclists from motor vehicles.